> second:
> I don't want to rain on your parade, but...
> from an architectural point of view: is
> "resolver.resolve("cocoon://dynamic-sql")" in XSP so much
> better than "document()" in XSLT ?
>
> Yes, the first is cached, and I agree (up to a point, though)
> that SQL queries belong to gene
nd(sb);
you could just use:
String sb = XSPUtil.getContents(source);
--Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 10:27 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer i
>
>
>Yepp!
>
>Andrew, give me a mail when you are ready to start...
>...maybe we can work this out together...
>
Cool . Will do. It is currently on the queue in position #9. I will
inform you if it moves to position #1 or if
it moves down too many positions.
Thanks,
Andy
>--
>Torsten
>
>---
On Saturday 13 July 2002 21:32, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > Vadim,
> >
> > My parade was to do achieve the following:
> >
> > 1. Excite a final decision on whether the SQLTransformer is deprecated
> > or not
> > 2. Excite an effort (if not)
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Vadim,
>
> My parade was to do achieve the following:
>
> 1. Excite a final decision on whether the SQLTransformer is deprecated
> or not
> 2. Excite an effort (if not) to clean both SQLTransformer and ESQL if
> not (SQLTransformer is *slo
, 2002 1:29 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1
>>
>>
>>Vadim & Andrew,
>>
>>first:
>>thanks.
>>
>>second:
>>I don't want to rain on your parade, but...
>>
>>
>
>
> From: Luca Morandini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1
>
>
> Vadim & Andrew,
>
> first:
> thanks.
>
> second:
> I don't want to
GIS Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://utenti.tripod.it/lmorandini/index.html
-
> -Original Message-
> From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 4:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROT
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> >>From: Luca Morandini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >>
> >>Andrew,
> >>
> >>do you mind terribly showing an example of an ESQL feeded by
> >>a dynamic query produced by XSLT ?
> >
> >I don't mind. Moreover, somet
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>>From: Luca Morandini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>Andrew,
>>
>>do you mind terribly showing an example of an ESQL feeded by a dynamic
>>
>>
>query
>
>
>>produced by XSLT ?
>>
>>
>
>I don't mind. Moreover, something tells me I already answered similar
>questio
> From: Luca Morandini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Andrew,
>
> do you mind terribly showing an example of an ESQL feeded by a dynamic
query
> produced by XSLT ?
I don't mind. Moreover, something tells me I already answered similar
question on user list...
Will it help you if I answer?
Vadi
>http://utenti.tripod.it/lmorandini/index.html
>-
>
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 3:17 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PRO
/lmorandini/index.html
-
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 3:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1
>
>
Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>P.S.
>>I use SQLTransformer only, and I'm happy with it :) don't deprecate it :(
>>
>>
>
>I guess it would be cool for both ESQL and the SQLTransformer to share code as
>well as syntax. But this will probably break backwards compatibility for
>both. IMHO it could be n
> P.S.
> I use SQLTransformer only, and I'm happy with it :) don't deprecate it :(
I guess it would be cool for both ESQL and the SQLTransformer to share code as
well as syntax. But this will probably break backwards compatibility for
both. IMHO it could be nice to start a new combo of XSQL log
L PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1
>
>
> Per Kreipke wrote:
>
> >>>Personally I much prefer esql to SQLTransformer because I can control
> >>>the caching in an xsp.
> >>>
> >>>Anyway it isn't qui
Per Kreipke wrote:
>>>Personally I much prefer esql to SQLTransformer because I can control
>>>the caching in an xsp.
>>>
>>>Anyway it isn't quite true that you can't do "transformation" in an xsp:
>>>I have SQL which is dynamically generated from an xslt transformer which
>>>I then feed into my
gt;
>Steve
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Per Kreipke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:54 AM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>&
to a use-case I suppose).
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Per Kreipke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1
>
>
> > >Personally I much prefer esql
> >Personally I much prefer esql to SQLTransformer because I can control
> >the caching in an xsp.
> >
> >Anyway it isn't quite true that you can't do "transformation" in an xsp:
> >I have SQL which is dynamically generated from an xslt transformer which
> >I then feed into my esql. I use the res
>
>
>>It is remarkably slower than ESQL. Okay if you feel this strongly about
>>it then thats fine. Would you
>>be against refactoring the two and moving the common constructs to
>>common classes as Vadim suggested?
>>
>>
>>
>No, refactoring sounds like a good idea as long as the SQLTransf
: Per Kreipke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 5:48 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The ESQL generator AFAIK supports everything one could need
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >-10
> >
> >The SQLTransformer provides a very good alternative to ESQL, it is in
> >some use cases more flexible as it is a transformer and not a generator.
> >And you don't need XSP to use it.
> >
> >The SQLTransformer in its current state is not a 1.x construct, it ha
oh and can we remove the "its deprecated" notation from the documentation.
Time permitting, I'll attempt to resolve why it is so slow by comparison.
-Andy
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Backward compatibility among minor revisions is generally a smart and
>
>
>>
>>
>-10
>
>The SQLTransformer provides a very good alternative to ESQL, it is in
>some use cases more flexible as it is a transformer and not a generator.
>And you don't need XSP to use it.
>
>The SQLTransformer in its current state is not a 1.x construct, it has
>been redesigned severa
>
>
>Another options is to move all the shared functionality to helper classes or
>components and reuse them in both places.
>
>Konstantin
>
>
If there is a reason to use this functionality at the transformer layer,
I'm not against the idea. I've yet to hear
a use case though. The only ones I
resolver to grab the output of the
transformation pipeline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Per Kreipke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 5:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove SQLTransformer in 2.1
>
>
> > T
>
>
>Here is one...
>
>xml-cocoon2\src\scratchpad\src\org\apache\cocoon\taglib\Tag.java
>
>If this idea picks up, SQLTransformer will be re-implemented as a set of
>tags (one tag?), and ESQL will be deprecated.
>
>:)
>
>
>PS SQLTransformer code might be messy. But functionality it provides is
>va
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Backward compatibility among minor revisions is generally a smart and
> good thing to do. However, there does
> become a point where it grows six legs and starts biting you.
>
> The ESQL generator AFAIK supports everything one could need to do via
> th
> From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > >On Thursday 11 July 2002 22:44, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > >
> > >>. . .
> > >>I'd like to propose we remove the SQLTransformer from
> Cocoon 2.1 and
> >
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> >On Thursday 11 July 2002 22:44, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >
> >>. . .
> >>I'd like to propose we remove the SQLTransformer from Cocoon 2.1 and
> >>newer releases, remove all SQLTransformer based samples (or p
>
>
>How can that be true? The transformation point in the pipeline is very
>different than a generator. For example, I can order transformations such
>that the SQL transformer comes between other transforms but you couldn't do
>that with a generator.
>
>
Very few times is there a reason to buil
>
> ESQL is certainly more developed, but it is not a replacement. Where
> in SQLTransformer do you suspect code rot? Have people been
> experiencing problems with it?
Open up the sourceode for the transformer, look at the amount of
repetitive code.. . The SQL Transformer is also some man
Per Kreipke wrote:
The ESQL generator AFAIK supports everything one could need to do via
the SQLTransformer and there does not seem
to be a reason to continue to support both technologies.
How can that be true? The transformation point in the pipeline is very
different than a
> The ESQL generator AFAIK supports everything one could need to do via
> the SQLTransformer and there does not seem
> to be a reason to continue to support both technologies.
How can that be true? The transformation point in the pipeline is very
different than a generator. For example, I can ord
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>On Thursday 11 July 2002 22:44, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>
>>. . .
>>I'd like to propose we remove the SQLTransformer from Cocoon 2.1 and
>>newer releases, remove all SQLTransformer based samples (or provide esql
>>alternatives).
>>
>>
>
>(I have no formal votin
On Thursday 11 July 2002 22:44, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>. . .
> I'd like to propose we remove the SQLTransformer from Cocoon 2.1 and
> newer releases, remove all SQLTransformer based samples (or provide esql
> alternatives).
(I have no formal voting rights here but)
-1
Why remove a component th
37 matches
Mail list logo
